Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend raises a point that has gone through my mind, but this is not an all-encompassing, catch-all Bill. I am afraid that there are lots of areas not covered by the Bill that, in an ideal world, I would have liked to cover. Unless my interpretation of my own legislation is incorrect, I do not believe that further education is specifically covered in the Bill. However, there is a possibility that the Minister may address the matter, because access to education and skills is extremely important for any adult with autism. Indeed, one of the major problems that we are seeking to address is the transition from childhood to adulthood, alongside trying to identify that swathe of individuals hidden under the surface who fail to get any help or support at all. I hope that the Minister will be able to address these points. I suspect that if I had attempted to introduce an all-encompassing piece of legislation, it might not have got as far as this stage.
	I was talking about the statutory guidance, which covers the assessment of the needs of adults with autism. This represents a crucial step forward, as a proper needs assessment by suitably qualified professionals is the gateway to appropriate and effective support. I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the assessments will be person-centred—I do not like that term, but it does express the meaning—and that they will be carried out by professionals with an appropriate level of autism-specific training.
	A vital part of the strategy's success will be the timing and scope of the consultation. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), assured us that the dates announced were the latest ones, and that he expected the strategy and the guidance to be issued much sooner than the timetable indicated. I am aware, however, that they will be staggered, and not released in tandem. Will the Minister outline in her speech the timetable for the publication of the documents? Ideally, there should not be too large a gap between the two publications. In addition, will she assure me that, if there is to be a separate consultation exercise for the statutory guidance, her Department will seek the views of all stakeholders, and not just local authorities and NHS bodies, as stated in the Bill?
	Another issue of timing involves the review of the strategy, and the question whether it should be revised if it does not produce the intended results. In Committee, the Minister of State said that he did not wish to make a time commitment in relation to when such reviews might take place. His reasoning was fairly acceptable, but questions remain about what might trigger such a review. Will the Minister outline how the success of the strategy will be monitored, and what indicators would trigger a review?
	Will the Minister also commit to naming an individual in the Department of Health with responsibility for the success or failure of the strategy? A clearly identified person in an official post covering this area would give the assurance that continuing attention will be paid to the outcomes for people with autism. One of the problems that the families of people with autism face is that, when they try to address an issue with a Government Department, they are unable to track down an individual with a title, a post or a name to whom they can direct their questions. Their case seems to disappear into a spongy area in the Department to be handled by whoever is the latest official to deal with it. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance on that point.

Liz Blackman: I agree. The culture of the workplace is a key factor in getting young people with autism into employment and keeping them there. It is a real challenge to shift that culture. I shall say more about employment in a moment.
	There are four more recommendations on the report's list. I want to read them into the record because transition is a crucial process. If we get that right, we are far more likely to get adult services configured in a way that secures good outcomes. The report continues:
	"The Government should ensure that all children with autism have opportunities to undertake meaningful work experience in Year 10.
	The Government must ensure that disability support advisors at further education colleges and universities have autism training.
	The Department for Work and Pensions should ensure that Connexions provide information to all young people with autism on Employment Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance.
	JobCentre Plus should ensure that all transition plans include young people's employment goals and outline the work support programmes available to them."
	Those are all relevant recommendations, and I hope that the Government will give them serious consideration and implement them.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned strategic planning. Some 74 per cent. of local authorities do not have a commissioning strategy for adults with autism. We are starting from an extremely low base, and that will be one of the biggest challenges to shifting the culture.
	On training, I welcome the wider definition of relevant services caught by the National Health Service Act 2006 and the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Extending the definition's scope is helpful. However, 80 per cent. of GPs told the NAO that they need more training and only 29 per cent. of local authority staff who are responsible for needs assessment have training in high-functioning autism. As has been said, Department for Work and Pension staff are not caught within the definition of relevant services.
	On jobs, we cannot underestimate the importance of trying to support people with autism, in particular those with the high-functioning condition, in getting meaningful employment. Whether one has a disability or not, employment is crucial to how people live their lives and feel about themselves. It gives an immense feeling of self-worth. Jobcentre Plus staff are not covered by the definition of relevant services. In particular, disability employment advisers and personal advisers, and also health care professionals involved in work capability assessment, are not caught by it and are not required to have training. We need buy-in from all relevant Departments to make a difference. The DWP must take ownership of relevant parts of the strategy. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort on how we are going to ensure that other Departments play their part.
	Employment has to be a top priority. There are brilliant examples of young and older people with autism who have been happily placed and are settled in their work. I met a young woman at an event the other day. She has high-functioning autism but is immensely talented in IT. She works for BT, where she is supported extremely well, and told me about Goldman Sachs, which also does sterling work in embracing young people with such skills and in supporting them in the workplace. The shopping centre at Meadowhall in Sheffield has a good reputation for doing the same thing.
	On local leadership, some time ago the all-party group took evidence from people in local authorities who had specific responsibility for autistic people's services. One individual—I think from the authority of Sussex; if I have got it wrong, I apologise—was incredibly good. He had seized the agenda by getting all the stakeholders together and making the system work. The services for adults in that authority were far better than in many others.
	As I said on Second Reading, we can have a Bill, a strategy, statutory guidance and all the rest, but it will not make a ha'p'orth of difference if they are not implemented. Implementation is complex, but has to be driven from the centre and from local leadership. We need to see sight of the implementation plan, sooner rather than later, in the strategy. The whole strategy needs rigorous, detailed monitoring.

Annette Brooke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on introducing the Bill, on the vast amount of detailed work that she has undertaken and, in particular, on her tenacity. Excellent joint working has been done across the parties and with the Government, and she has brought certain skills to that: her good humour, her diplomacy, her negotiating skills and much more. All that has brought us to the point that we have reached today.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who has obviously made an enormous contribution. It began long before I joined this House, but I have been very much aware of what she has done. In addition, she has been connected with quite an important organisation that serves my constituency, although it is not located within it: the Wessex Autistic Society. It is a great honour to follow her. She has brought reality to what we are discussing today and shown us just how serious some of the shortcomings are in the services for children and adults with autism. We are aware of those shortcomings and we have lots of statistics on them, but by talking about the misdiagnoses and what actually happens—the breaking up of people into little bits—we identify what we are about today: we are trying to remedy that situation.
	The Liberal Democrats supported the Bill on Second Reading and made it clear that we wanted to have further discussions in Committee. We wanted to do everything we could to support that process, as we felt it could only be beneficial. We did not want to rely just on the Government's promises, although I am sure that the motivations behind those were good. We needed to ensure that the Bill had more bite in order to ensure that we made progress.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who was graceful in expressing that we are rather pleased with this Bill—that is important. Although I played a very small part, I will have some pride in it if we are able to say that we have really changed matters. I congratulate the Ministers who have been involved, because a great deal of work has been done to reach this position, and the large number of organisations that have been involved—I should at least mention the National Autistic Society. I am sorry that I only managed to attend two Committee sittings out of three. The one that I missed was the crucial one, but I have, of course, read the  Hansard record in great detail so I hope that I am fully au fait with everything. That was a very important sitting and involved the unusual situation where the promoter of the Bill proposed that her clauses be deleted and replaced by Government clauses.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I am very pleased to support it, although I am rather conscious of all the people whom we are not mentioning. Thus, I shall not go too far along that line, except to say that my unsung heroes include the support groups that I meet in my constituency, one of which is for adults with autism and Asperger's and another of which is for parents whose children are at school and have such conditions. Their needs are very different, and that brings home to people the real battle that parents have all the way along the line. I wish to echo the earlier point that parents' greatest fear is what will happen when they die—that never fails to touch my heart—and we know that we have to make things better for that reason.
	May I return to the new structure of the Bill? I think that I shall refer to this Bill—and later, to the Act—many times, because it contains a great deal of detail. I have been told so many times that a certain thing is not suitable to go in a Bill when the discussion has been of what the guidance should include, but this Bill creates a precedent that will be incredibly useful across the board. I give notice of the fact that next time I am on a Committee I shall have this Bill in my pocket, because it is excellent. It is just what we need on this particular subject.
	Undoubtedly, the Bill has been a catalyst for the Government introducing their raft of proposals, and today we have the opportunity to put those proposals on a statutory basis. Most of my time in Parliament is spent talking about children, so I just wish to refer briefly to children with autism before I get on to discussing what is now the main part of the Bill. I was pleased when early on the Government committed to amending the children and young people's plans through the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which placed a new legal duty to ensure that local areas collate and share data on disabled children as part of their CYPP needs assessment and include children with autism in their plans for children's services. We also have a commitment that the statutory guidance that accompanies the regulations will state that autism must be specified as a specific category. The announcement of further funding for the Autism Education Trust to improve services commissioning is also welcome. All those commitments go beyond what the original Bill covered, and are very pleasing. Although the Bill is a big step forward, there is much more to be done, and much to be improved, in children's services. We know from the parents we talk to about the gaps that remain, and the situation must be reviewed and monitored.
	Children's services have improved over the years, but the situation remains dire for transition and adult services, with woeful gaps. It is so important that we have reached this point today, and at least made a start in addressing the dreadful gap in services. I was pleased to serve on the cross-party panel of MPs that was established to conduct hearings on services for disabled children. What we heard, loudly and clearly, was that parents felt that they had got through the school years only to have to start all over again with the transition to adult services. We heard again and again that successful transitions could be achieved only by parents literally screaming for the services that they needed.
	The problems include inadequacy of transition planning, lack of communication between children's and adult services, and a lack of co-ordination between different services and agencies. We have referred to the National Audit Office report, and I wish to cite more statistics from it. A quarter of parents surveyed in 2006 felt that transition support was co-ordinated. In other words, 75 per cent. did not think so. Only one in three parents felt that Connexions' knowledge of autism was adequate.
	The lack of assurance of support when a statement comes to an end has been a problem for so long. We know where the gaps are and what is needed. We know that we need multi-agency assessment at the right time, transition plans to be developed with families, and appropriate goals set.
	I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), which I hope the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) will take on board, and the all-party parliamentary group on autism on its recently published inquiry and report on transition into adulthood by young people on the autism spectrum. The key points identified include effective and timely planning; realistic but stretching expectations; the need to enable young people to reach their full potential, because we have had too much waste in our society for so long; effective joint working across services; and a key contact. I am very keen on the latter point, because when parents and young adults are engaging with a raft of services they need to have just one person to talk to and to liaise with. Other key points include furthering the understanding of autism by training for all professionals involved; accessible information for young people and their families; and appropriate funding. The key recommendations from that report and inquiry will be timely for the consultation on the strategy and the statutory guidance on the Bill.
	The amended Bill will put a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce a strategy for improving outcomes for adults with autism, accompanied by statutory guidance for local authorities and NHS bodies. It will provide a huge opportunity for progress in meeting the needs of adults with autism. The new clause goes beyond what was originally proposed, and the statutory guidance will cover all the crucial aspects, including access to diagnosis; needs assessments; transition planning; strategic planning of support services for adults with autism; and local partnership and co-operation.
	On diagnostic services, I recently received a representation from a unitary council in the south-west. It said that in the council's area
	"there is no diagnostic service for adults with autism/autistic spectrum. This means they are unable to access any services and support they might be entitled to and this should be seen as Disability Discrimination. These people, even if high functioning, are most likely to fall under the category of Vulnerable Adults. The only way to achieve a diagnosis/assessment locally is to go privately—which may be unachievable due to financial constraints".
	Many families may be unable to take that step—

Anne Milton: I was always aware of the danger that this morning's speeches would sound a little more like an Oscar ceremony than anything else, and I am afraid that I will only add to that. None the less, I say to my children and to my colleagues that when one does something well, one should be proud of it. It should be used as an opportunity to understand better how one can do things better in future. I therefore want to associate myself with all the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). This Bill has indeed shown Parliament at its cross-party best, sharing and joining together in a drive to improve the lives of people with autism. At a time when people are so angry with politicians, this Bill is not only a huge landmark for people with autism, their families and their communities, but might be a small chink of light for Parliament itself.
	I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who has been a voice on this matter for a long time—since long before I ever arrived in the House. I pay tribute to the all-party group, the National Autistic Society and many others, including Ministers. The Government, having originally resisted the Bill, have swung all their efforts behind it and have been remarkably and notably gracious in their retreat.
	I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Surrey county council. It is one of those councils that everybody loves to hate, but it is cited in the Department of Health's consultation document as an example of good practice:
	"The County Autism Group and autism lead have developed a network of 80 ASC champions across services in all sectors in Surrey. These champions have six months' training and mentoring and then help cascade this training to their team. Champions are supported to network and share good practice across services. Assessment of this process showed that it had led to positive outcomes for individuals...In addition, the county group and autism lead have supported Surrey County Council and Surrey and Borders Foundation Trust to jointly develop an ASC training pathway with different levels of training for staff in different services."
	The danger today is that, having highlighted the huge lack of services and of unmet need, we will lose the small pockets—there are some—where there is good practice and where innovative approaches are being taken.
	The hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who openly admitted a change of mind, paid significant tribute to others, but I want to pay tribute to her for graciously changing her mind and throwing her weight behind the Bill. She referred to many statistics, and I will repeat some of them because they cannot be mentioned too often. There are more than half a million people with autism in the UK, and they struggle to gain access to the services they need. Outcomes for such people are extremely poor: only 15 per cent. of adults with autism are in full-time work, almost half still live with their parents, and more than a third have developed serious mental health problems. A lack of ready access to services has a huge impact, not only on them but on their families and carers. As many Members have said, the parents often worry about their children's future, when they will no longer be able to support them. Older parents carry around a huge burden, worrying what will happen to their children when they die.
	Some 70 per cent. of children with autism have one additional psychiatric illness, and almost half have two or more. A quarter have self-harmed or have suicidal thoughts. If we look at the rise elsewhere in the number of children who self-harm, we see that the figure is likely to increase. The figures are truly shocking. If we spill out a load of figures, there is a danger that people will get figure-blind, and their eyes will glaze over. If we have any members of the press still sitting in the Press Gallery, I ask them to take note of some of the figures and to take them on board.
	The Bill, as amended by the Government, puts a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce a strategy for improving outcomes for adults with autism, accompanied by statutory guidance for local authorities and NHS bodies. We hope that, if the Bill is passed, it will be a catalyst for huge progress in meeting the needs of the country's adults with autism. In many instances, the Bill as amended goes well beyond the original measure. It is in that regard that the cross-party working, and the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and many others, have been so effective. We are talking about access to diagnosis, needs assessment, transition planning—a crucial area, and one of many areas where people may fall through the holes in the net—strategic planning and support services, and local partnerships and co-operation.
	I should like to highlight six or seven key issues. When the Minister sums up, I hope she will address some of the issues on which there remain questions in some people's heads. On data collection and the need to identify people with autism, the National Autistic Society's comparison showing how hard-to-reach groups become easy-to-ignore groups was quite haunting. The key point is that groups of people can no longer be easy to ignore. They might remain hard to reach, but we can no longer ignore them.

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, it is pretty shocking when one hears of a teacher saying that, but one will hear the same story from families and charities working with, say, children with epilepsy. Children with epilepsy will have absences, will be low academic achievers, and may well be 12, 13, 14 or 15 before anybody realises that they were not just staring out of the window vacantly or failing to pay attention, but had epilepsy. We hear that time and again. I do not want to wander too far from the subject before us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but bear with me for one moment while I say that there is a need to raise awareness within the teaching profession, and many other professions where people come into contact with children with a multitude of different needs. People in those professions should be alert to conditions such as epilepsy, and should signpost children and their families to possible diagnosis. However, today we are talking about autism.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, "joint strategic needs assessment" is a terrible mouthful. One of these days—soon, I hope—we will start simplifying the language that we use in Government, at all levels, so that ordinary people can understand it. The joint strategic needs assessment must include and mention the needs of people with autism. It would be useful if the Minister confirmed that the statutory guidance will specify that the JSNAs should account for the needs of people on the autistic spectrum.
	I should like to say a word about commissioning. Nowhere in the NHS or in local authorities have we really got to grips with commissioning, because the starting point tends to be the services that are available. We decide where those services should be placed, not so as to provide the very best service for specific groups, but so as to serve them as best we can, or hopefully serve them, at any rate. That is the wrong way round. The joint strategic needs assessment will be a crucial tool in commissioning the right services. One must first assess the needs, and then provide the services to meet those needs. That can mean a significant change in services. One of the reasons that does not happen is that it can be very uncomfortable for service providers, as it can mean big changes; it can mean reshaping how services are set up and delivered.

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend for re-emphasising that important point about the gap between the group of services available and the unmet need. The two are not necessarily in line with each other. If commissioning is done well, what a rocky ride that can be for Government at all levels, but we will never get commissioning right in any area of local government or in the health service until we start from the needs of the population that we are trying to serve. Proper needs assessment is necessary to build a platform on which to develop services that dovetail and produce the results that we want to see.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to the training of staff. Only 15 per cent. of people with autism are in full-time work, so the training of staff in Jobcentre Plus as personal advisers and disability employment advisers will be crucial. That training, as we have already said, needs to go much wider—80 per cent. of GPs said that they needed more training and guidance. Increased awareness of autism among accident and emergency staff and across the community will mean that people with autism are recognised and empowered, and have equal access and opportunities. It would be useful if the Minister confirmed that professionals who have particular responsibility—let us start there—for supporting adults with disability will get specific training to help them support adults with autism.
	The fourth aspect is community care assessments. It should go without saying that they should be person-based. It was a long time ago that I first heard the term "holistic care" mentioned—well over 25 years. I see the Minister nodding. We share a professional background, and I am sure that at times she, like me, could weep at the lack of progress. Care assessments must be person-centred, which means that they must be carried out by those with the training necessary to assess the needs of people with autism. I ask the hon. Lady to affirm her understanding of the need for appropriate training for people who undertake community care assessments.
	On the publication of the strategy and guidance, I was moderately amused to see in the National Autistic Society's briefing that the Department of Health had said that it was standard to stagger the publication of strategy and guidance. I always hate it when I read that anything is standard, or that "that's what we always do", because an opportunity to do things differently might be overlooked. Perhaps the Minister will explain the policy, as I may have missed something obvious. Will she do what she can to ensure that strategy and guidance are published together, and if that is not possible, will she tell us why not?
	In that context, it would be useful for many of the people who will read or who are watching the debate if the Minister gave us some idea of the dates of publication. We need to know that as soon as possible. We frequently hear from local authorities and various health agencies that they are still waiting for the statutory guidance. That is terribly frustrating. Often, local authorities want to get on and start fulfilling their commitments under new legislation, but the guidance is slow in appearing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned silos. That is my penultimate point, and the subject is a bee in my bonnet. We talk about partnership working, attend joint meetings, make joint appointments, and believe that in doing so, we have achieved joint working. We have ticked the box on working in partnership, but real joint working is about getting out of those silos. Only then can we make the difference. The silos have to go. Government at all levels are desperately resistant to moving out of their bunkers and sharing budgets, experience and the benefits of cost-sharing.
	As with commissioning, if we have our eye on the needs of the population for which we are trying to provide services, there should be no reason why we cannot break down the walls between Departments. Will the Minister spell out the measures that her Department will take to ensure that the strategy can be developed and implemented jointly with other Departments, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions?

Anne Milton: My hon. Friend makes yet another excellent point. If I recall correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), who is not in the Chamber today, introduced a ten-minute Bill on exactly that point a couple of years ago, when he was shadow Minister for People with Disabilities. He pointed out the huge complexity of some forms, which would defeat many of the brightest of us. If we assess people's needs, and one of their needs is to access services and benefits readily and easily, simplification of the forms must inevitably follow.
	Finally, on the review, the Secretary of State must keep the strategy under review if we are to hold the present and future Governments to account. To review the strategy, we need to monitor and we need indicators. It would be useful to know from the Minister what indicators will be used to determine when a review of the strategy is necessary, how the Department intends to monitor the progress of the autism strategy, and whether a named individual within the Department of Health will have responsibility for the successful implementation of the strategy at local level. I hope that the Bill will be passed today. Having made huge progress, it is crucial that all the energy and enthusiasm are not lost. What we need is real drive to make sure that, if passed, the Bill starts to produce results at the front line.
	Rather like the Oscars, thanks are due all round for the cross-party working, and a cheer for the parents and families who told together the care of their small children, their teenagers, and their younger and older adult children. While we at every level of Government have moved painfully slowly in developing proper services to support those families, who are the unsung heroes but who are often wrung out, exhausted and have developed their own health problems, both physical and mental, as a result of their never-ending caring responsibilities.
	Whatever our party politics, whatever our background, I have never doubted that all hon. Members came to the House to make a difference. Many of us have struggled at times to make the difference that we thought we could make, if only we found the way of doing it. We often have the opportunity to help individuals with their tax credits and their battles with the many Government agencies and with the local council, but to make a difference throughout the country is not easy. I hope that, today, Parliament has made a difference not only to the 500,000 people with autism, but to their families, friends and carers.

Ann Keen: I thank the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) for her warm words and encouragement and hope that, through my speech, I can address all her points.
	I am so pleased and indeed proud to speak to this Bill. I sincerely apologise on behalf of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), the care services Minister, who has played such a key role in its progress. He is very disappointed and sorry that other business prevents him from being here today, but I shall be sure to pass on to him the very kind remarks about his commitment that were made in all parts of the House and, in particular, by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
	I pay tribute to the hon. Lady. She should be proud of her achievement in introducing the Bill. Her determination to drive it forward, while recognising the need for a realistic and collaborative approach in Committee in order to obtain the ends that she seeks, greatly impressed my hon. Friend the care services Minister. In addition, I recognise the efforts of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) in her tireless work to promote the needs of people with autism before the Bill was introduced and since, including her active participation in Committee.
	I have the highest regard for the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, because prior to entering Parliament we both had a health background, and we both know how we have struggled to bring our knowledge to the forefront in this place when it has not always wanted to listen. I suppose that we now have to put Devon county council on warning, as this debate has managed to do; the way in which the hon. Lady managed to put across the reality of the misdiagnosis of mental health problems will never leave my mind. I hope that that goes not only for people in the House today but for health professionals outside. She gave an example in which she asked, "If this were a cardiac condition, how would it be managed if it were misdiagnosed?" That was absolutely accurate and to the point. I know that many Members from all parts of the House have the highest respect for her, and after the debate I look forward to perhaps chatting to her about how we can continue to work together.
	The Government, like the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham and for Tiverton and Honiton, are committed to taking action to improve services for people with autism. We are determined to see true, transformational change and a real improvement in their quality of life. Our means for achieving that is the development and publication of an adult autism strategy. The full publication of a consultation on the content of that strategy began in April, and that in itself indicates our commitment.
	As Members present know well, my hon. Friend the care services Minister made it clear on Second Reading that, although we shared the principles set out in the Bill, we could not support it in the form it took at that time. That is why in Committee, my hon. Friend tabled the amendments that have made the Bill what it is today. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has eloquently made the case for this Bill, and the figures that she quoted are a powerful testament for the need for action in this area.
	I have no ministerial responsibility for this area of care, but since knowing that I would be present today and having been privileged to be a part of taking the Bill forward, I have learned a great deal. Even though I am a former health professional with more than 28 years' experience, I know that we can still learn a great deal and it has been a pleasure and privilege to learn more on this subject.
	The National Audit Office's recent report on services for people with autism provides further evidence of the needs of people with high-functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome, and of the types of service and good practice that already occur in some areas. Senior officials from the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Children, Schools and Families appeared before the Public Accounts Committee earlier this week, as has been mentioned, to give evidence on the NAO's findings. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton took that opportunity to press for continued action to improve services, especially on the diagnosis, assessment and understanding of autistic spectrum conditions, and I trust that she and other members of that Committee were reassured that we take the issue seriously not just in the Department of Health, but throughout the Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who spoke with her usual honesty and passionate feelings on the subject, raised the issue of how important local leadership will be to the implementation of services, and I am pleased to say that there will be representatives of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services on the external strategy reference group.
	Clause 1 places a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish by April 2010 a document setting out a strategy for meeting the needs of adults in England with autistic spectrum conditions. By improving the provision of relevant services by local authorities and the NHS, the Secretary of State will be required to keep the autism strategy under review and will be able to revise it. He will have a duty to consult and seek the participation of such persons as he considers appropriate in preparing and revising the autism strategy.
	That consultation process has already begun, so clause 1 also contains provisions to ensure that the consultation will fulfil the Secretary of State's duty, even though it will have not only begun but ended by the time the Bill comes into effect. Similarly, my hon. Friend the care services Minister has made it clear that our intention is to publish the autism strategy by the end of this year. Therefore, the clause also contains provisions to ensure that doing so fulfils the Secretary of State's duty to publish a strategy even if the Bill has not come into force at the time of publication.
	Of course, publishing an autism strategy is only the beginning of the story. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) ended her contribution by saying: although we have packed and got the journey, how will it end? I hope that, with her knowledge of young people and children, on whom she so often speaks, we will be able to complete the journey together.
	To that end, clause 2 places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance by 31 December 2010 to local authorities, NHS bodies and NHS foundation trusts for the purpose of securing the implementation of the autism strategy. Some Members may ask why there is apparently such a gap between the deadlines for the strategy's publication and for issuing the guidance on its implementation, and I shall return to that point later.
	Clause 2 also sets out some issues that guidance should cover as a minimum. It requires the Secretary of State to keep the guidance under review and to consult the NHS and local authorities on preparing it and, if the Secretary of State proposes, on revising it. On the strategy itself, there are also provisions to cover the possibility that the consultation on the guidance may begin before the Bill comes into effect, and to ensure that such a consultation fulfils the Secretary of State's duty under the clause.
	Clause 3 is of particular interest. On Second Reading and, indeed, elsewhere, my hon. Friend the care services Minister gave clear commitments that the guidance on the implementation of the autism strategy will have the necessary bite to drive real transformational change. The clause puts that commitment into action. It specifies that the guidance is to be treated as section 7 guidance under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, meaning that local authorities will be required to exercise their social service functions in accordance with the guidance. Case law has established that that means more than just taking account of the guidance. A local authority that failed to comply with section 7 guidance without a really compelling reason for doing so would be acting unlawfully.
	For NHS bodies, there is no existing provision equivalent to section 7 of the LASS Act. In order to create the same obligation on NHS bodies to act in accordance with guidance issued under clause 2, clause 3 also specifies that, for the purposes of that guidance, NHS bodies are to be treated as local authorities. That means that their functions in relation to the provision of relevant services are social services functions under the provisions of the LASS Act. That means that NHS bodies will be bound by the guidance to the same extent as local authorities, which also means that the case law that has established the status of section 7 guidance as being more than just advice to be taken into account will apply equally in relation to NHS bodies.
	I should add that these provisions will not apply to NHS foundation trusts. Although the Secretary of State is required by clause 2 to issue guidance to NHS foundation trusts, they are not covered by clause 3 because the definition of NHS bodies set out in clause 4 does not include NHS foundation trusts. That means that foundation trusts will be expected to take the guidance into account in planning and providing services for adults with autistic spectrum conditions, but they will not have the same duty to act under it as local authorities and NHS bodies. This reflects the greater autonomy of NHS foundation trusts.

Liz Blackman: Just for a bit of clarity, let me point out that, in Committee, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), explained that this is handled through the contracting system. He said:
	"Yes. The Bill does not apply to foundation trusts for the reasons that I have just given—wider policy and so on—but if a PCT is contracting with a foundation trust, as I said earlier, the obligation of the PCT as an NHS body to ensure that it is carrying out its statutory duties is, therefore, handled through the contracting process. I emphasise that the NHS foundation trusts have more autonomy in the system, which is why the Bill cannot directly apply to them in the way that it may apply to other NHS bodies." ——[ Official Report, Autism Public Bill Committee, 13 May 2009; c. 38.]
	I hope that that clarifies the point.

Ann Keen: We are here to please.
	As I said, my hon. Friend the Minister of State wanted to be present, so he has asked me to say the words that he would have said had he been here. I therefore need to make some progress, if hon. Members can bear with me.
	It is a further mark of the Government's total commitment to the autism strategy, and the improvements that will flow from it, that we have chosen to provide for the Bill to come into force automatically, two months after Royal Assent is given, so no commencement order will be needed.
	I want to turn to the links between this Bill and existing Government policy, and how the Bill will support it. I make no apology for reiterating that our commitment to developing and delivering that strategy is rock solid. Indeed, we have already made clear our intention to publish the final strategy by the end of 2009. We are content to underline our commitment by setting ourselves a statutory time scale for doing this—with, of course, a sensible margin for flexibility. We are also happy to underpin our commitment by signing up to a requirement to consult on the strategy.
	We are already working closely with a very wide set of stakeholders. We want to hear from as many people as possible whose lives have been touched by autism, whether personally or professionally. We have already benefited from input from an external reference group comprising people with autism, family, carers and health and social care professionals involved in front-line delivery of services. We will continue to work very closely with the group over the next few months to build on what it has already done as we develop firm proposals for the final strategy. We have also commissioned a team of social policy researchers to run a series of consultation events so that we can involve many more people, especially those whose voices are less often heard.
	Of course, the development and publication of the adult autism strategy will be only the first stage in the journey of transformation. We will not be simply putting it into the public domain and then leaving local authorities and the NHS to get on with it—a worry expressed by some Members today. The key to real transformation will be a focus on delivering at national, regional and local level. To support that, we will consult on and deliver detailed mandatory guidance to set out what the NHS and local authorities need to do to achieve the changes that we expect to be described in the strategy. Again, the Government are happy to be tied into that commitment by the Bill and to commit to a clear date by which the guidance will be published.
	As I said earlier, I know that some might feel that the nine months between the final publication deadline for the strategy and final publication of the supporting guidance is rather a long time, but until we have completed the consultation on the strategy and are more certain about the exact priorities for action, we cannot start working up the guidance in detail. As we are going to place an obligation on the NHS and local authorities to act in accordance with the guidance, we must allow time to consult those organisations on its content. For example, we need to ensure that we do not set requirements on them that are impossible for them to meet in practice.
	I remind the House that we have made a firm commitment that the guidance will but put on a statutory footing for both local authorities and NHS bodies. Although it may well be possible to issue the guidance considerably earlier than the end of 2010, we have taken the prudent step of ensuring that we have sufficient time to do the job properly. We are happy to underpin our commitment to review and reissue the guidance as appropriate. In consulting local authorities and health bodies on the guidance, and on any subsequent revisions, we intend also to seek the views of other key stakeholders.
	In amending the Bill, the Government have made a firm commitment on the headline issues that the guidance will need to cover. They include the provision of diagnostic services, information gathering including needs assessments, strategic planning of services, transition planning, work force training and local leadership. Those reflect the key themes identified in the consultation, particularly the importance of public services coming together to assess the needs of people with autism and what support they need to live independently and be included in their communities. Driving a change in attitudes and culture, particularly among all front-line staff who come into contact with people with autism, is particularly important. Of course, the list of themes is not exhaustive or exclusive. The provisions do not preclude the inclusion of other issues in the guidance; they require only that those particular ones must be included.
	I turn to the strategy itself. As the House will know, we are currently in the midst of a full public consultation on its content. As I mentioned, in developing the strategy we want to hear from as many people as possible. People with autism and those who know them are the real experts, and their input will be invaluable. We have therefore undertaken a range of different activities to ensure that the strategy is properly informed by key stakeholders.
	The consultation document was developed with the help of an external reference group including adults with autism, their parents and carers, health and social care professionals involved in front-line delivery and those with experience in supporting adults with ASD into employment. We will continue to work with that group over the next few months and build on its ideas as we develop the strategy.
	That is only one of the many ways in which we are engaging with stakeholders, particularly people with autism and their families. Now that the consultation has been launched we are encouraging as many people as possible to respond in writing, by e-mail or through an online questionnaire—whichever they prefer. We would also like people to organise their own discussion groups, and we are making available a toolkit to support individuals and groups to do that.
	Alongside the formal consultation, we are carrying out a range of activities to help capture the views of adults with autism and their carers, many of whom would find it difficult to respond formally to the consultation. Events will be taking place in each of the nine Government regions over the summer. In the first instance, they will include one-to-one interviews and small group discussions with adults with autism and their families, conducted in the way that is most appropriate to the individuals involved. There will also be interviews with professionals working with adults with autism. The activities will be wide-ranging and allow participants to talk about the issues that are most important to them. The findings of the interviews and discussions will then be used to help develop engagement workshops in each of the nine regions, which will delve further into the priority areas for action in the strategy and consider possible solutions.
	A number of adults with autism find it much easier to communicate their views online and through e-mails. We are therefore developing an online community to allow those who prefer to communicate in that way to discuss their priorities for the strategy. We believe that that menu of options for involvement in the consultation means that as many people as possible can have their say and help us to develop a strategy that works on the ground.
	The House would not expect me to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. Nevertheless, with the external reference group for the strategy, which is chaired by the chief executive of the National Autistic Society, we have identified the priority themes for an adult autism strategy. They are health, social inclusion, access to employment, choice and control, and training and awareness.
	Housing has been mentioned in the debate, and the Government agree that it is an important issue for people with autism. Public service agreement 16 on improving inclusion in society for those most excluded focuses on housing and employment. We will consider housing in our consultation on the adult autism strategy.

Ann Keen: The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. In my borough—the London borough of Hounslow—we have an organisation called Speak Out in Hounslow and the Owl housing association, which does great work. We must ensure that we look across the spectrum.
	It is worth spending a little time considering the thinking behind the themes and what we hope to explore through the consultation. In the health theme of the consultation, we are seeking people's views about diagnosis and post-diagnostic support; the importance of understanding local populations through data collection; meeting local need through strategic planning; ensuring that all health services are accessible to adults with autism, and ensuring that people with autism get the right support from mental health services.
	Adults with autism, their families and carers often tell us about the challenges that they face in accessing diagnostic and post-diagnostic support. That point has been well made today. They can often struggle to get an appropriate assessment of their support needs from a professional who understands what it means to be on the autistic spectrum. Many people and their families tell us that they feel lonely and isolated after receiving a diagnosis and do not know to whom to turn for the right support and information.
	We also need to tackle diagnostic overshadowing. The difficulties that a person with autism experiences with communication, together with a lack of awareness and understanding of their condition and needs, can mean that some professionals do not see further than the person's autism and thus miss underlying health concerns. I mentioned previously the problem of falling into the gap between mental health and learning disability services. There is also a risk of being inappropriately treated and supported under one of those services. Training and awareness raising, which I will cover shortly, is vital in ensuring that adults with autism get the right care and support from the health service.
	There are many examples around the country of good practice, whereby services identify and support adults with autism in their everyday lives. For example, in Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, the transition and liaison team provides a diagnostic service and short-term post-diagnostic support service to adults with Asperger's syndrome. It also supports those with an existing diagnosis, especially during the difficult period of transition to adulthood.
	The service focuses on interventions to reduce social isolation and mental health difficulties, and helps adults develop independent living skills and relationships. It helps them access a range of appropriate supported housing options, better social and academic support, and learning opportunities during transition and in continued education. It helps address carers' needs and supports improved employment opportunities for adults with autism. It also supports better access to forensic services and post-diagnosis emotional support. That sort of service is a brilliant example of how local areas can respond positively. More needs to be done to enable that to happen consistently, which is why delivery and implementation are key parts of the Government's strategy.
	Making reasonable adjustments in a health care setting can be very easy. A mother of two sons, both of whom have an autistic spectrum condition, has told us that her GP is the only means of support that they have, saying:
	"He is aware that both function better in the afternoon and so we are always given afternoon appointments. If possible we are given his last appointment so that he can spend longer with our sons if he needs to.
	It is also quieter then. He is quite happy to let my eldest son who is 21 read any books with information regarding treatment and also his notes on the screen to make sure that he is happy with what has been written.
	He is also aware that our eldest is more comfortable speaking to some of the doctors within the practice than others and this has been noted without it becoming an issue.
	If there are no appointments available we can speak to any receptionist and state that we have an arrangement with the practice and we have always been able to see someone within 24 hours.
	This goes right across the board within the practice. The asthma clinic, which usually runs on a morning, will also see our son in the afternoons.
	I have no doubt that we would sink were it not for the understanding and adjustments made by our GP and his practice. A little understanding really can go a very long way."
	That is an example of the health service delivering a quality personal service and treating those two young men with the dignity that they deserve.
	On the theme of social inclusion, we are interested to hear people's views on how adults with autism can access the appropriate support, including social support, to enable them to be fully included as active citizens in our society. As active and independent members of our community, we all aspire to a home of our own, a social life and the opportunity to pursue the things that interest us, whether they be spending time with friends and family, playing sport, going to the cinema or relaxing over a drink—of two units only, of course.
	It is only right and fair that adults with autism should have the opportunity to pursue the same things that many of us take for granted. Adults on the autistic spectrum will have varying levels of need, and it is important that they can access a range of appropriate and timely support, reflecting the complexity of the autistic spectrum, that promotes inclusion. People's social needs should be met through support to develop and maintain their family life and relationships. They should be able to access meaningful activities of their choosing during the day and evening, and have access to housing that considers how the physical and sensory environment can affect a person with autism.
	From what people have been telling us and from the work of the external reference group working with the Department of Health on the development of a strategy, we have heard a number of concerns about the need for strong and committed local leadership to ensure that adults with autism get the right support and access. A good example is the Liverpool Asperger's team, which is a multi-disciplinary team established in 2003 to address the issue of people falling through the gaps in service provision, which is something that we often hear about. The needs of many people on the spectrum are often misunderstood, leaving many people vulnerable. The Liverpool team is a joint effort on the part of the primary care trust and the local authority. It takes a person-centred approach, provides assessments and diagnoses, offers direct support through its managed care pathway approach and makes referrals to other services.
	The team also works with local services, including schools and colleges, mental health services and specialist services, such as those involved in the criminal justice system, and with those receiving support from mental health and alcohol and substance misuse services. The team also offers training and advice to other professionals about Asperger's syndrome, including through regular awareness-raising sessions, playing a vital role in enabling good practice to cascade through the local area.
	The key to getting things right for adults with autism is ensuing that the strategy delivers on the ground. Examples of good practice from across the country demonstrate what works. We are keen for local agencies to learn from each other and to help each other improve local services. We have to learn how to share best practice better and how to communicate it, whether in health or social care. There is an excellent exhibition at the ExCel centre today—it was also on there yesterday—about advancements in health and social care. What has been brought about through innovations in independent living and how people can be assisted would probably be beyond most people's imagination. I commend all those involved—led by Lord Ara Darzi—in the quality programme. There were many good examples that social services could also have registered with.
	In Greater Manchester, multi-agency autism services development groups have been set up in every local authority. The groups look at what can be achieved in their local area by improving current provision within resources. The chairs of these groups sit on the steering group for the consortium and share information about similar problems that different local authorities have come across, and any solutions that they have found. The consortium also funds the National Autistic Society's family services development project, which provides information, advice and support to families across Greater Manchester. Through the work of this project, information about what is happening on the ground is fed back to the consortium to help to inform commissioning. The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned the importance of getting commissioning right. It appears that Greater Manchester has got the best practice right in that regard, and many of the services with which I have been involved are prepared to share their knowledge of how to achieve this.
	The North East Autism Consortium was established to develop a regional approach to addressing the planning and service needs of people with autism. It is working towards the development of a regional commissioning strategy. Four autism services development groups have been set up to share good practice and advise on development.
	We know that people with autism have particular problems with social communication and may need specific support in that area. That might involve services such as befriending, social groups or social skills training. From listening to people with autism and their families, we know that these support services can offer a vital lifeline and help to tackle social exclusion. In the National Autistic Society's "Exist" report, one parent describes a monthly social group as an activity that gives her son the freedom to be himself. Such services are available in a number of areas across the country. We applaud the work that they do in tackling isolation and promoting confidence.
	I also pay tribute to the all-party group on autism, which—along with the National Autistic Society—has achieved great things. The chair of the group, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who described her quietly getting on with the work at the back of the Committee, which is typical of her. The group's commitment to the Bill has been overwhelming, and all hon. Members have recognised that. We should pay tribute to the work of all the all-party groups in Parliament, and to the all-party group on autism in particular, in the context of this Bill.
	Newham Asperger's service is another example of the organisations providing the services that I have described. It organises two monthly social groups, which provide adults with autism with an opportunity to meet other people, develop friendships and share experiences and advice. The service also aims to reduce isolation and build much-needed confidence.
	Access to employment is an important factor that has been mentioned by many hon. Members. A further key theme of the consultation is access to training and employment. Our vision is that all adults with autism will have the opportunity to do work that is appropriate to their skills and interests, and have access to the right level of support to meet their needs in the workplace. Adults with autism should be able to access skills and education courses that help them to prepare for work. They should also be able to access support to develop those skills once they are employed, so that they can progress and achieve their full potential. It is also important to recognise that people need support towards employment and that, for some, full employment might not be what they want or are able to achieve. The key is to support each individual to achieve their potential, whatever that might be, and to give them choice and control as part of their person-centred plan.
	I am sure the House is aware that personalisation, as well as choice and control, are central to the current direction of travel in health and social care. It will be no surprise, then, that choice and control is a key theme in the consultation on the autism strategy. We want to ensure that adults with autism can access the right support to help them exercise the same choice and control over their lives as everyone else. Within the choice and control theme of the consultation, we are seeking views on how people with autism can be better supported through person-centred planning.

Ann Keen: I would not have expected anything less from the hon. Lady. Perhaps that could be discussed with the Minister responsible for these matters during the Bill's passage in the other place.
	On the issue of joint working across relevant Departments, I am happy to confirm that, although my Department is in the lead on this matter, it is a cross-Government piece of work. We have a steering group for developing the strategy which includes representation from all relevant Departments including the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office for Disability Issues, and we are also working closely with Cabinet Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
	I can confirm, as the hon. Lady asked me to, that we will ensure that the delivery plan for the strategy is robust and practical. We will assess the impact of the proposals and the benefits, weighing up the evidence in a systematic manner. We will be able to draw on the work of the NAO to develop our analysis.
	I am delighted to be supporting the Bill. I am delighted to have been able not just to make my own contribution but to make the important contribution that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, would have liked to make had he been able to be here today. We can confirm that the Bill is in a form that the Government can wholeheartedly support as it continues its journey through Parliament. We have made a difference in this Parliament. The hon. Lady has made a huge contribution, along with her colleagues but, of course, as we all recognise, it is the families and the people with autism who have made real progress. I hope that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading today and that the other place will ensure that it becomes an Act.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on bringing his Bill to the House and on the manner in which he presented it. It is a cause for which he has campaigned tirelessly, and I pay tribute to him for his perseverance.
	I declare an interest as a service pensioner, a distinction that I share with my right hon. Friend. Although our service did not overlap, I believe we served for about the same length of time and retired in the same rank. It is more than a year since the Bill was debated in the House, a period in which our armed forces have continued to make us proud, whatever position we have taken on the Government's foreign policy. Much has been spoken of the military covenant since 2003. The men and women of our armed forces have every right to expect Government to keep their side of the bargain in relation to the military covenant. The deal includes the proper recognition of the crucial role and sacrifice of dependants—a fact that, I think, is acknowledged by all parts of the House.
	The Bill was last debated on 1 February 2008 and my right hon. Friend has given the background to it. We have heard that, prior to 1973, the widow of a retired serviceman was entitled to a pension equal to one third that of their spouse. In 1973, the armed forces pension scheme was improved. Service widows' pensions were upgraded to half the spousal rate on that part of the pension earned by service after 31 March 1973. The difference between one third and half in respect of widows constitutes one of the armed forces pension scheme's legacy issues to which we can add others, such as pension troughs, post-retirement marriage widows' pensions, the pre-2005 non-attributable widows' pension, Gurkha pensions and a number of others on which the Forces Pension Society briefs so admirably.
	This issue has, quite rightly, generated considerable interest among the public, and I notice that the Bill has cross-party support. In February last year, the Minister's predecessor estimated the cost of upgrading all pre-1973 widows' pensions to the half rate to be £30 million pounds. Will the Minister today tell us the updated figure and how many widows would benefit from the changes that my right hon. Friend seeks? It is only fair to say that it has been the policy of successive Governments to resist retrospective changes to existing pension schemes on the ground that to do otherwise would invite consequential and unaffordable public sector demands. I have no doubt that the Minister will cover some of those points in his remarks.
	When the Bill was last before the House, the then Minister estimated that the wider cost implications might total £3 billion. Is that still the Ministry of Defence's estimate, and how was that calculation arrived at? Members will no doubt be aware of the provision in the amendments of 31 March 1973, which enabled members of the armed forces still serving on that date to buy in their prior service to the half-rate scheme. Apparently, it was a popular option, but it was not extended to people who had already left the services, and my right hon. Friend's Bill is chiefly aimed at that group. If the retrospective changes that he seeks were made, the large number of voluntary buy-ins and their extra contributions would, presumably, have to be taken into account. How many people might that involve, and what is the value of their voluntary contributions?
	I acknowledge that change can sometimes be achieved without risking meltdown in the public finances. In doing so, I note the amendments in 2000 for widows and widowers whose spouses died as a result of their service, and they may now retain their pensions on remarriage. The provision was extended to all widows under the terms of the armed forces pension scheme 2005, although not to those whose spouses died prior to transfer to the new pension scheme—an apparent anomaly that was brought to my attention by a service widow who came to see me recently, and about which I have written to the Minister. Given that, evidently, change is possible, I look forward to hearing what plans the Minister has for further improvements to the armed forces pension scheme.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on introducing this Bill. His success in the ballot suggests that he has the same lucky touch that I had. His Bill calls for the equal treatment of pension provision for forces widows. He has clearly followed the usual advice to keep it as simple as possible to ensure that people could not fillet it when it came before the House.
	A similar Bill was introduced in December 2007, with its Second Reading taking place on 1 February 2008, when the debate was adjourned. The Bill was twice rescheduled, for 22 February and 17 October, but unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, it was not reached. The main proposals in the Bill were also extensively debated during the passage of the Pensions Act 1995. I pay tribute to the support that the right hon. Gentleman has given to members of our armed forces, not only in promoting this Bill but generally over many years.
	As Minister for veterans, I always find it a great privilege to meet veterans and widows. Those widows are very varied. Some are very elderly, but there are now some who are very young as a result of the conflict in Afghanistan. Last Friday, one young widow, Victoria Bateman, convinced me and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), foolishly, to do a parachute jump with her to raise money for the Parachute Regiment charities. She is a young lady of 24, which demonstrates the differences that exist, which are also, of course, reflected in our veterans. There are our second world veterans and the two remaining first world war veterans, but also the younger veterans that we have today.
	This Government have a proud record in supporting veterans and armed forces widows. To their credit, they introduced the post of Minister for veterans—a job that I am very pleased and proud to do—to recognise the special debt that we owe to veterans in society. The success of the veterans badge is shown by the fact that more than 715,000 individuals have applied for it and are wearing it with pride. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will participate in armed forces day on 27 June, and the lead-up to it, not only to say thank you to today's servicemen and women but to support and recognise our debt of honour to our veterans from former conflicts.
	As the right hon. Gentleman intimated, the Bill does not only deal with retrospection in benefits paid to widows; it has an impact just on that scheme, but on other schemes involving the Ministry of Defence and other public services. As he said, when someone joins a pension scheme, the terms and conditions under which they do so are clearly laid out, and it has been the policy of successive Governments that retrospective benefits are not paid in the MOD pension scheme or in other schemes. As he rightly said, the issue to consider is affordability. This Government have made only one exception to that rule, to which I shall refer later. It rightly applied to a specific group of defined widows.

Kevan Jones: As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes a useful intervention. If he uses the great services of the Library, he will find the information, but I do not have the answer at the moment. The key point is that whenever a new pension is introduced, there are always winners and losers. That happens today, too, and I will say more about that later.
	There were stringent conditions relating not only to the husband's length of service, but to age, marriage and even the age difference between the man and the woman. The system was far from simple. The main requirement was that the marriage took place before retirement or discharge. The resultant pension was awarded subject to a means test. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) suggested, the state pension was taken into account.
	Until 1939, for the RAF, both types of pension—special and ordinary—were paid out of the MoD vote. However, the responsibility for funding a pension for death due to service in the case of those who served after 3 September 1939 was then assumed by the Ministry of Pensions, which would be the Department for Work and Pensions today. The pension was called a war award. As has been said, where the money comes from is important. It is Government money, but we must ensure that there are not burdensome pressures, not only on the general Exchequer but on the defence budget . Even back then, there were competing demands for funds.
	The rate of pensions was not altered until 1950, but increases were awarded, with other service pensions, under legislation in 1944 and 1947. Improvements in benefits were considered after the post-war pay and pensions review and resulted in a new benefit called the family pension scheme, which was introduced by Command Paper 8741, payable from 1 December 1952. It relates to those who served in the armed services after 31 August 1950.
	It is interesting to note that the then Government considered whether improved family schemes should be financed by a contribution from the serviceman. I think that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire referred to that. We must remember that the schemes that we are considering are not funded. The individuals do not make contributions, although I accept that under the current scheme, people's pay awards are taken into consideration as an abatement, which sometimes causes concern and resentment in parts of the armed forces. It is sometimes difficult to explain the figures when calculating wage awards.
	It was decided in 1950 that the non-contributory scheme should continue because applying a contributory scheme to the services presented too many difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman said that servicemen and women are a unique group, and I agree. However, there is some crossover with the police and fire service. Again, their schemes are non-contributory and those individuals put their lives at risk, but I accept that the armed forces are unique, and there is nothing comparable that we could consider. However, anyone who is involved in local government will know that those two schemes, which are both unfunded, are under a lot of pressure.
	The main changes to the scheme were introduced for those who served after 31 August 1950. The new scheme again demonstrated that pensions policy evolves, with the introduction of new measures, which were not retrospective, including the abolition of some of the restrictive conditions of the former scheme. The pension for widows of men below the rank of WO2 who had served after 31 August 1950 also qualified, subject to length of service. Again, we get a sense of dates being introduced that improved benefits, but those benefits were not made retrospective.
	Payments of a reduced pension called a modified pension—this is where the length of service and other conditions were satisfied—were made from MOD votes to widows who qualified for the war award from the then Department of Health and Social Security. Another important change was that the conditions requiring marriage to have taken place before retirement or discharge were relaxed, only to recognise the re-employment service given during 1939 to 1940, so that if a serviceman qualified for a reassessed pension and his date of marriage preceded the date of the completion of his re-employment, his widow could be considered for a pension.
	The length-of-service conditions were also changed. In particular, the length-of-service conditions for the payment of a forces pension to a widow of a man below the rank of WO1 who died after discharge were: 22 years for a man at the rank of WO2 or a flight sergeant; 27 years for a sergeant; and 32 years for a corporal or below. That created a second category of pensionless widows, because the husband would be receiving a pension regardless of rank if he had completed 22 years' service after 19 December 1945, but only if he had completed a longer term than that required by the widows regulations. Again, the system changed, with the consequence that widows whose husbands did not meet the new criteria did not receive a pension.
	The legislation covering rates has also changed over time. The ordinary pension was paid at a flat rate according to rank, with variations relating to length of service for widows of men below the rank of WO1. The flat rates attracted increases under subsequent measures to increase pensions, and they formed the basis of what was called the minimum rate, for which any widow whose husband had retired or been discharged before 31 March 1973 could qualify, where the benefits to which they were entitled under other provisions were smaller.
	The introduction of the modified pension was necessary because it became obvious that a widow qualifying for an ordinary pension plus state pension benefits, which had by then improved, could be financially better off than a widow of a man whose death was due to service, but who was receiving only the war award, as it was still known. Modified pensions were approved for war award widows who otherwise qualified for an ordinary pension. Again, there was a flat rate by rank, which was equal to approximately half the ordinary pension for officers, to two thirds of the pension for those at the rank of WO1 and to the special rates for lower ranks. Those pensions also qualified for the increase in benefits.
	The war award benefits paid by the then Department of Health and Social Security were related to rank. There was no minimum length of service required, and the date of marriage was not a barrier if death occurred after 3 September 1939. Some would argue that that illustrates two systems working side by side, possibly resulting in unfairness because some people qualified while others did not. Perhaps this demonstrates the long history of unfairness that has built up in the system over many years.
	In 1958, the Grigg committee's recommendations were accepted by the Government and were introduced and payable from 1 April 1959 for widows of men who had died after 4 November 1958, regardless of when their service ended. However, the changes did not benefit the widows of men below the rank of warrant officer who were discharged before 31 August 1950, or the widows of men discharged after that date who had died before the introduction of the changes of 5 November 1958 and who had not previously qualified. Again, this is a change that some would argue disadvantaged certain individuals.
	The revised provisions at that stage gave widows an ordinary pension of a third of their husband's original retirement pay or pension, or a third of the invaliding pension for which he would have been eligible if he had died while serving. The modified pension, where death was due to service, was set at half the ordinary rate. Widows' pension attracted the benefit of an increased measure introduced since the date of discharge or death in service. The minimum rate could be paid as an alternative, where that was more advantageous.
	It soon became clear that, because the new benefits were awarded to the widows of men who had died after November 1958, regardless of their date of retirement or discharge, anomalies were being created between the flat rate and the two-thirds award given to the widows of men with exactly the same service record and dates. So the widows of two men who had served for exactly the same length of time could be treated differently.
	It also became clear that many widows of men whose death was due to service were worse off financially than they would have been, had their husbands died in normal circumstances. Approval was given to reassess the former, and to introduce a supplementary pension for the latter group. This recognised the unintended consequence of the changes, which had left a group of widows at a disadvantage.
	Under the Grigg reassessment, as it was called, all existing widows' pensions were given the benefit of a third principal ordinary pension or a sixth principal modified pension, instead of the pension that they were receiving, where that was to their advantage. The scheme was designed to help those who had been disadvantaged, but the revised rates were paid from 10 December 1963, and the underlying principle of all the changes was not one of retrospection, which is what the Bill calls for.
	The supplement was introduced to ensure that the total pension income of the widow of an officer who was receiving a war award would exceed the income that she would have received had her husband's death not been due to service by at least £26 a year. I have asked how that amount was chosen, because a lot of these figures seem arbitrary—

Kevan Jones: As I understand it, the scheme refers to both. The distinction that we made, which I shall come to, relates to the 2000 decision, which, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, made an exception for widows of those who had been killed in conflict. There was rightly a retrospective element to that. The defined nature of the individuals to which the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) referred covers only a small number of people. I am trying to demonstrate that the pension schemes have changed over time. Those changes have been made by, I think, successive Governments of all political persuasions, to improve the lot of war widows, which all hon. Members would recognise are a special case.
	The 1973 changes relate to the Bill. Following a Government plan to introduce occupational pensions for all employees, the half-rate benefit for widows was also introduced for the public service. Before that, there was no defined right to a pension. For many people in many jobs who worked for quite a while and left before accruing the necessary number of years there were no preserved pension rights.
	There were three main benefits to the changes to pensions for servicemen and their widows. For half-rate pensions, for all service after 1 April 1973, an opportunity was afforded for all personnel serving at that rate to buy in a pension at half rate instead of a third of the rate for pensionable service completed before that date, a point made by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. A number of individuals took up the offer to pay the increased buy-in. A consequence of the Bill would be to discriminate against those who made that choice.
	The second benefit was that the rate of pension paid by the MOD for the first 91 days of widowhood was to be the basic daily rate of the RAF pay or, for those already retired or discharged, a rate of payment at the date of death where it exceeded a half or a third of the entitlement.
	The third change was a reduction of the qualifying period for a pension in cases of death to five years from the age of 18 for both officers and other ranks. The widow's pension was to be calculated as a proportion of a man's invalidity entitlement at that time. The invalidity pension rates were also enhanced.
	A special rate—an attributed pension related to rank—not dependent on a minimum period of service could be paid where death in service was found to be attributable to service. The death gratuity was also changed. It was formerly payable only to widows of those who died in service. It became payable in all cases. The amount was to be equal either to the terminal grant or twice the maximum rate of retired pay for whichever rank had the higher award. That was another alteration, but the rules on marriage remain unaltered in the new legislation. Again, those benefits did not apply retrospectively; they applied only to widows of men who gave service after 30 March 1978, and they were additional to any entitlements under Department of Health and Social Security regulations.
	Under the state scheme at this time, the Ministry of Defence was required to provide a pension payable from age 60 for those who had completed not less than five years of service. Prior to 1975, there was no right to preserved pensions in any public or private pension schemes, and most schemes had very restrictive criteria for awarding pensions. That was not just the case for the Ministry of Defence. The qualification for a pension under civil service arrangements was that an individual had to be over the age of 50 and to have served for 10 or more years. Those who left voluntarily before meeting those criteria lost rights to pensions. Armed forces occupational pensions were awarded only if a member had completed at least 16 years of reckonable service as an officer or 22 years of reckonable service in other ranks, and reckonable service was paid after the age of 21 for officers and 18 for other ranks. Engagements for shorter periods were not permissible.
	I am aware that there has been a campaign on behalf of individuals who served during this period but did not get any pension. Last Saturday, I had the honour of meeting almost 300 veterans in Clumber park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Several people raised the preserved pension issue, and we have to feel very sorry for some of these individuals who served their country. One person had been in the Navy for 12 years and had got no pension for that. Again, the changes were not retrospective in this case, and the argument put forward was—as it is again today—that retrospection would make that scheme unaffordable.
	A group representing those who did national service has also been campaigning on this issue. Prior to 1975, there was no statutory provision requiring employers to allow a national serviceman's period of compulsory service to count towards an occupational pension. However, the notion of its contributing towards a state pension was made on behalf of those on national service terms, and the changes brought about by the 1973 legislation and the subsequent social security Act did not apply to those national servicemen.
	I make the point about preserved pensions because although the right hon. Member for East Hampshire rightly raises the injustice that war widows feel, if he were to meet the individuals who did not get preserved pensions, he would find that they feel equally hard done by. Although it is hard to explain, I sometimes have to say to people that changing the legislation and retrospectively paying would be unaffordable. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) has tabled early-day motion 46, and he has campaigned very hard to get recognition for this group.
	On 31 January 2007, the then armed forces Minister set out the background to this legislation and the changes that took place in 1975, saying that there was no conceivable prospect that this or any other future Government would pay out to those individuals.

Kevan Jones: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will wait with anticipation for my figures. What we cannot do, both with this group of widows and with others, is treat people in isolation, because there will be consequences, and not just for other Departments. All I am trying to demonstrate is that there is a group of pensioners, some of whom served their country with great distinction, who, through no fault of their own, have no pension entitlement, even though they have served for a number of years. I agree with him that it is difficult to explain all this. The gentleman whom I met last week at the Bassetlaw event had served for 12 years, and some of his service had been in Korea. He had been in some dangerous situations, and he is clearly somebody who we should thank for his contribution to the security of this country. Again, I am trying to demonstrate that if the Bill were to go through today as it stands, other groups would have strong cases to say that we should deal with them, too.
	I am trying to demonstrate that all changes have unintended consequences and things can be hard for the individuals in question. Other changes that were introduced, with some exceptions in respect of short service, and air crew and others, meant that widows of men with preserved benefits entitlements would automatically qualify for a widow's pension, provided only that the marriage took place before discharge. Where their husband's death occurred before the age of 60 the terminal grant is payable to the entitled widow. Again, it is difficult to explain to some widows why those changes affected them. The appropriate benefits are increased across all measures from the date of discharge.
	Some changes came in on 6 April 1978, with effect from the introduction of the state scheme, which provided the widow's pension based on the husband's working entitlement. The date of marriage provision as it applied to service awards needed amendment. Where marriage or remarriage is after discharge or retirement, a pension may be awarded, but only relating to the pension or retirement pay earned after 6 April 1979. A number of other benefits were paid under the scheme.
	Another scheme that changed and had consequences in different ways was the children's pension. Such pensions were payable to widows or whoever had care of an eligible child. The benefits were provided at a flat rate until 1958; they were at a third of the rate payable to widows in respect of each eligible child, with no limit on the number of children who might benefit from that award. From 1 April 1973, the amount payable for each child was equal to a quarter of the father's retirement pay or invalid pension, subject to a restriction in respect of a maximum of children. That again demonstrates that changes were introduced that would affect people, either in the future or retrospectively. The attributable rates were flat rates by rank; these were subject to there being a maximum of four children.
	Benefits for motherless children—a horrible term—were at a higher rate of two thirds of the widows benefit from 1958, and a third of the father's pension from 1 April 1973. Death gratuities, payable to the eligible widow at a flat rate, were introduced in 1950. These were increased to 90 per cent. of the husband's terminal grant from 1958 and to 100 per cent. from April 1970, but no retrospection applied to that increase. The alternative, if financially beneficial, from 1 April 1973 was twice the top rate of retired pay for husbands, and those payments were tax free at the time. All service pensions are taxed as earned income. The war award pension paid by the old DHSS was 50 per cent. tax free from 1 April 1976, and tax free from 1 April 1979.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of the recent enhancements, which continue the trend of successive Governments trying to improve the lot of our servicemen and women and of widows. He gave the example of the changes in 2000. Since then, benefits for widows and widowers where death was attributable to service have been continued on remarriage. Since March 2003, pensions and compensation have been made available to eligible unmarried partners for service deaths relating to conflict. I was pleased to be involved in the Bill that brought that in. It was clearly an anomaly that individuals who were not married did not receive a pension. I recall the case of a major who was killed and whose partner was not automatically entitled to a pension, so an exception had to be made. In September 2000, the concession was extended to deaths attributable to service, and since April 2005 death in service lump sums have risen to three or four times pensionable salary, depending on the individual scheme.
	The introduction of the new pension compensation scheme in April 2005 was a considerable achievement at the time, when other schemes in other areas were under pressure to move away from defined benefits. That debate is still going on, and I know that Conservative Front Benchers are keen to advocate examining whether cuts or changes need to be made to public sector schemes. The benefits provided under the 2005 scheme compare favourably with public sector schemes and those in the private sector. That reflected modern practice and the increase in family benefits. However, the new benefits, like all the other changes that I have outlined, were not retrospective, continuing the position taken by this Government and others on changes to improve the lot of our armed forces.
	May I turn to some of the more recent improvements for war widows? A number of improvements have been made to pensions provision for war widows in recent years, including, as I have already mentioned, the April 2000 changes that introduced the payment of a pension for life for those pre-1973 widows who were in receipt of a pension at the time. The change was not made retrospectively, as with other changes that had been brought in.
	Additionally, the war widows' special allowance, which is now known as a supplementary pension, was introduced in April 1990 and is payable to widows who receive a war widows' pension in respect of the death of a serviceman who died or left the services before 31 March 1973. Again, being the inquisitive soul that I am, I asked why we came up with such a precise date. The person in the MOD who came up with it, however, is obviously in civil service heaven or its equivalent.
	A war widows' pension is paid only when death is due to service. It is not normally a survivor's benefit. The purpose of the measure was to bring the overall pension provision for war widows more into line with the provision for those widows whose late spouses' death were due to service on that infamous date of 31 March 1973 and who were receiving an attributable pension under the armed forces pension scheme.
	For instance, prior to the allowance, world war two widows whose husbands' deaths were due to service received only a war widows' pension while a Falklands widow received both the pension and an attributable pension under the armed forces pension scheme of 1975. As at December 2008, more than 90 per cent. of all war widows were in receipt of the supplementary pension.
	May I turn to the changes that have been made that apply to current members of the armed forces? There are two main pension schemes for current members of the armed forces. One is the armed forces pension scheme of 1975, known to the Department, which loves its acronyms, as AFPS 75—anyone who deals with the MOD knows that people need a dictionary of acronyms when they become a Minister. I am still trying. I was speaking to Lord Robertson the other day, who said that he failed in his time to get the Department to stop talking in acronyms.
	The armed forces pension scheme of 1975 was closed to new entrants on 6 April 2005. The armed forces pension scheme 2005 was then introduced on 6 April 2005. It is important, seeing as I am an anorak about dates, to remember that whenever a pension scheme or benefit is changed, there has to be a date. People will always fall on one side of that line or on the other.
	The reserve forces pension scheme—the RFPS, as it is known in the MOD—was also introduced on 6 April 2005. I was pleased to be on the Committee on the Bill that introduced that measure, and we also changed the compensation that we paid to injured service personnel. The Government also provide compensation for individuals who are injured or disabled as a result of service. The current scheme for injuries received due to service on or after 6 April 2005 is the armed forces compensation scheme, or AFCS for those in the MOD. The war pensions scheme, the WPS, provides no-fault compensation to any former member of the UK armed forces who was injured or disabled as a result of service before 6 April 2005.
	I am pleased that the armed forces compensation scheme provides a tax-free sum for pain and suffering according to tariffs for injury, ranging over 15 sums from £1,155 to £570,000. Hon. Members may say that that is not pension, but it demonstrates that we, like other Governments, have made a change in how we compensate members of the armed forces. Again, that compensation scheme is not retrospective. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire and I have received representations from many individuals who were injured before the scheme was introduced. People might ask why their case cannot be considered under the scheme. That comes back to the point that whenever one makes a change, there will be a cut-off date. That is seen as unfair for the individual who is not eligible. It is a hard issue for any politician. I know that both he and I would like to do the maximum possible for our servicemen and women, who have fought on behalf of this country. It is not easy to explain about the arbitrary date that is introduced.
	I have mentioned the legacy issue concerning preserved pensions. As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell tabled early-day motion 46, which has secured quite a lot of support. It, too, is about the retrospection of a scheme. It is important that we do not build false hopes. We should not say that a scheme will be changed when it is clear that the change will not be introduced if it is not affordable for this or any future Government.
	I met Major-General Moore-Bick of the Forces Pension Society and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) on 10 December last year to discuss the issue raised by the Bill and the remarriage issue—that is, whether we should change the provision that, when people remarry or cohabit, they can keep their pension. It was interesting that the one thing that they emphasised—I have sympathy with the individuals concerned—was that they did not feel that the scheme could be retrospective. I am a cynic at times, as many in the Department know. I wonder whether we sometimes try to look for solutions that are more difficult than the problems that are presented to us. If we were to make a change to allow people who remarried or cohabited to retain their widow's pension from today, would not a large group of individuals who had lost that pension in the past come forward and ask why today's date was chosen? That shows the difficulty with the arbitrary dates chosen. I will talk again to Major-General Moore-Bick, because he is a great champion of widows and armed forces pensioners in general.
	The right hon. Member for East Hampshire raised the issue of the one-third and one-half rates, which I have already touched on a little. Until 1973, widows of retired servicemen were entitled to a pension equal to a third of the pension of their late husband. As a result of the major changes made under the Social Security Act 1973, which improved not just armed forces pensions but other public sector pensions, and pensions more generally, the rate increased to one half from April 1973, but only for the widows of those in service from that date. As I have said, service personnel were given an opportunity to make a direct contribution and to buy in former service at the half rate. It is predicted that it would cost up to £30 million a year to change all pre-1973 armed forces widows' pensions to the half rate. The implications of such a change across Government would be considerable, because other public service schemes would look into the change.
	I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. I find it frustrating that what we do in one Department has an impact on another. We might wish to introduce changes independently for our special group of service men and women, but those who advise me and others must consider the implications across Government.

Kevan Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be very unfair if, for example, we were to pay the increase now, but the estate of somebody who went to meet their maker a week before or a year before did not have a claim on it? It is not as simple as he suggests. Moreover, as I mentioned, members of the armed forces who served after 31 March 1973 were given the option to buy in their previous service. Would it not be unfair now to extend the enhanced benefits to widows of husbands who had not taken steps to acquire that financial improvement? Compensation would be difficult. Would we have to set up a scheme to pay back those who had chosen to pay the additional contribution?
	Post-retirement marriage is another problematic example that dates back to the Social Security Act 1975, which had implications for the AFPS and many other schemes. The Act required occupational pension schemes to introduce a pension for widows who married their husbands after they had retired from service. Provision was made in the armed forces pension scheme in 1975 to comply with the Act, but only widows whose husbands served after April 1978 benefited, and only service after that date was used to calculate the pension. For widows, the change was not introduced until April 1989, and then only for service from that date.
	The one-off extension of entitlement to all current and deferred AFPS pensioners would, the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear, cost about £50 million. Again, there would be a crossover effect on other public service schemes.
	The other issue that affects pensions is commonly referred to as the pension for life. Following a change of policy in 2000, widows and widowers have been able to retain their pension on remarriage or cohabitation—a point that the right hon. Gentleman made. However, the change was extended only to those individuals who had not already remarried or cohabited. The changes that were made in 2000 were exceptional and for a special group of war widows, and they were not extended to the widows and widowers whose spouses had died for reasons unrelated to service life. That was a defined group of individuals to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred.
	In 2008, the Government Actuary's Department conducted a detailed study of the costs of providing pensions for life for non-attributable widows, and found that the cost of providing pensions for future service would be about £14 million a year. That would gradually decrease, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, as the number of AFPS pensioners fell—as they got older and the grim reaper took his toll. Using the rates in the 1975 AFPS, the retrospective costs would be about £70 million, but they might be as high as £350 million for the armed forces scheme. I asked for the figure throughout the public sector, and I shall be quite happy to share the information with the right hon. Gentleman afterwards. It would be about £3 billion, although I accept his point that, as years go by, it will decrease. Again, however, such a measure would be unfair.
	No Government have retrospectively changed pension entitlements under the schemes. It is worth looking at the similarities between the provisions of the Bill and the changes that were introduced in the Pensions Act 1995—being an anorak, I spent last night trying to see the crossovers. The main clauses before us were tabled during the passage of the 1995 Act in order to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do today. New clauses 11 to 14 were introduced by Mrs. Ewing, a Scottish Nationalist Member at the time, and they were voted on. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who was a Minister in what I think was the Department for Social Security in 1995, resisted new clause 11, and it is worth noting what was said in respect of the other new clauses:
	"With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 12—Post 1973 war widows— 'Notwithstanding any other enactment, a widow awarded a Forces Family Pension (Attributable) shall receive that pension for life.'. New clause 13—Post 1973 war widows (No. 2)— 'Notwithstanding any other enactment, a widow in receipt of a Forces Family Pension (Attributable) shall receive that pension for life.'. New clause 14—Post-retirement marriage: service widow's pension— 'Without prejudice to benefits already available under the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme for widows of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces with service beyond 6th April 1978, no widow of a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces shall be disqualified from receiving a full pension under that scheme in relation to her late husband's membership of Her Majesty's Armed Forces by virtue of the fact that the marriage occurred after he had retired from Her Majesty's Armed Forces, provided that that marriage was before his 65th birthday and had lasted for at least three years.'."—[ Official Report, 4 July 1995; Vol. 263, c.248-49.]
	The new clauses were eloquently proposed by Mrs. Ewing, and the Minister replying, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, said:
	"New clause 11 seeks to make an exception for one group of public service pensioners—the widows of ex-service personnel—by backdating an improvement to the armed forces pension scheme that was made in 1973."—[ Official Report, 4 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 258.]
	The provision of pensions for the widows of those who married after the husband had left the scheme was one of a number of major improvements to public service pension schemes made in the 1970s, but each of those improvements was introduced at a fixed and current date; none would have been affordable if it had been extended retrospectively to recognise all previous service. Sir Tim Spicer, the MP for Dorset, I think it was— [ Interruption. ] Sir Jim Spicer, the MP for Dorset, West. I thank the hon. Member for West Chelmsford.
	The fact that those changes were not made retrospectively in the 1970s was an important factor for the Government then, and it is an important factor for the Government now, and for all future Governments. I do not usually agree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, but he reiterated that not only that Government but others had never engaged in retrospection. He clearly explained that if new provisions were introduced with retrospection, it would make them unaffordable. Mrs. Ewing, who was obviously quite a formidable lady, was not having that and pressed the new clauses to a vote. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman in any way, because I know that, like me, he is a party loyalist, but he voted against the new clauses. The Ayes were 41 and the Noes were 199. The then Government realised that they could not have retrospection, and that is relevant today as well.
	There is a legal principle involved in retrospection, and all these things get tested in the courts—increasingly in the European Court of Human Rights. In January 2002, the Forces Pension Society backed a challenge in the European Court by a number of retired officers on the post-retirement and one-third pension issue. Their complaint was that the 1975 AFPS calculation of their widow's pension entitlement in the event of death, which was based on the date of marriage or retirement, was arbitrary and discriminatory. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks made that point in his contribution on the 1995 Act. It takes me back to the point I keep making, that wherever we put the cut-off date there will be winners and losers on either side of it.
	Interestingly, the Court ruled that the challenge was inadmissible as the individuals involved were not victims and had received their entitlement as set out when they retired. It ruled that the subsequent rule change had not altered the entitlement of those who had already retired. That is an important point. People join a scheme on the terms set out at that point. I accept that many of us, particularly younger individuals, never look at their entitlements in their pension scheme until later in life, when they realise that they might make it to retirement and get the pension that they have been paying into. However, that challenge to the scheme was not allowed by the European Court of Human Rights.
	The Bill encompasses civil partners. As hon. Members know, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 created a completely new legal relationship enabling two individuals of the same sex to register their relationship. The Bill suggests that civil partners, as well as widows, be included in its remit. When registering a civil partnership, same-sex couples obtain legal recognition of their relationship and acquire the same rights enjoyed by married couples. We extended those rights in the Armed Forces Act 2006, and I remember that that was bitterly opposed at the time by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), but common sense succeeded. The Civil Partnership Act came into force on 5 December 2005. Before that date, while other couples had the option of marriage, same-sex partners could not formalise their relationship.
	The situation for service personnel who were still in service when the Act came into force is straightforward: the whole of their reckonable service will be counted towards the pension of their civil partner survivor. The general guidance on the Act was that the entitlement of civil partners to survivor's benefit could be limited to service between 1988 and the date of the scheme member's retirement. However, for the armed forces pension scheme it was decided that as civil partners had an entirely new status, they would be allowed to count service from October 1987. The same was agreed for widows' pensions.

Kevan Jones: I am pleased that the Government have recognised and helped that group. The Conservatives opposed the 2004 Act, but I understand that the new Conservatives now support the measure, although some of the more regressive backwoodsmen possibly think it was not a good idea. However, my hon. Friend makes the good point that it extended benefits and civil rights to a group of individuals who did not receive them in the past.
	The Bill means that those entering into a civil partnership would be eligible for a survivor's benefit, so those in service on 5 December 2005 would be allowed to count all their service for their civil partners' benefit. Those who left service before that date but were in service on or after 1 October 1987 would be allowed to count all service after 6 April 1978—a date on which service was counted for post-retirement spouse's pension. Again, that is in line with widows' treatment. Those who left service before 1 October 1987 would not be entitled to count their service for that purpose. When establishing eligibility for a survivor's pension, service personnel and the Veterans Agency will look for proof of registration, as they would look for a marriage certificate for a widow or widower. The Bill would extend civil partners' eligibility to receive survivor's pension far beyond the remit of the 2004 Act. The arrangements would be far more generous than those under the 1975 armed forces pension scheme.
	Much as I welcome civil partnerships legislation, we cannot escape the fact that someone would have pay for the extension of entitlement, and the burden would again fall on the defence budget. In my experience in the Ministry of Defence in the past nine months, affordability comes up time and again. The Treasury keeps a keen eye on implications for the Exchequer, not just the defence budget.
	There is some concern about reservists because the Bill discriminates against them, although I am sure that that is unintentional. I know that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire would never wish to do that because he supports all our armed forces, full time or reservists. However, clause 4, which is entitled "Interpretation", states:
	"In this Act... 'armed forces' means the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, but not the reserve forces,... 'reserve forces' has the same meaning as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996".
	The Bill would, therefore, albeit unintentionally, exclude reservists. I find it particularly unfair that it excludes a group which I know that the right hon. Gentleman supports, and which makes an invaluable contribution.

Kevan Jones: We will call that a score draw, but such matters could be considered in Committee, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford suggested. The important point is that if the legislation is to make provision retrospectively, it must cover all groups, although I do not think that it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention not to do that.
	I have covered some of the issues relating to the retrospective nature of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly made the argument for the special group that he mentioned, but there are other areas of the Bill where, if we were to make a change, we would make a special group of others, as I think I have mentioned. Another group that we could argue for are those who were affected by what is called the pension trough, which relates to public service pension schemes that are final salary schemes, such as the armed forces pension scheme of 1975. That means that pension awards are made on the basis of an individual's pay rate at the time, which is again a topical issue.
	There have been a number of troughs over the past 50 years, but a particular cause for concern among service pensioners in the mid-1970s, who still feel aggrieved and quite rightly make representations, was the fact that public sector salaries were restrained because of the then incomes policy. Several years of high inflation meant that the pensions of those retiring before wage constraints were lifted were overlooked. They are another group of people whom we might consider who feel strongly that they were disadvantaged through no fault of their own. They served their country, but they were affected by the then Government's incomes policy. The question is whether we should make a retrospective change for those individuals.
	Last time I was at the Dispatch Box, I was replying to the Gurkha debate. Everyone would agree that we owe the Gurkhas a great debt of gratitude, but one of the issues raised in that debate was the retrospection of Gurkha pensions. As has been said—I know this in detail—the issue has been to the High Court on a number of occasions. The Gurkhas are a group of individuals whom the public support and for whom they have a tremendous amount of respect, but there is an issue with those individuals who served before July 1997—a date chosen because it was the date on which the Gurkhas became based in the UK, rather than in Hong Kong or other parts of south-east Asia. The pensions payable to Gurkhas post-1997 were incorporated into the armed forces schemes, with most of them in the new armed forces scheme of 2005, while the pre-1997 pensions obviously come under a different scheme. There is the question whether we should retrospectively pay any changes in the armed forces pension scheme to the pre-1997 Gurkhas, which is an issue that I have already raised, given the changes that we have made to allow more Gurkhas to come into this country, and which I think is due to return to court this year. The figure for that group alone is £1.5 billion.
	Those two examples demonstrate the costs involved. They might not seem like much individually, but if we add them up, we see that they are large just for the MOD, and the implications across other Departments are also quite large. The provisions would also break the precedent relating to retrospection, which all Government have resisted doing. To do so would make most of the changes to the pensions would be unaffordable.
	A further point that I would like to make relates to the plight of war widows. I pay tribute to Gill Grigg and others from the War Widows Association who have worked tremendously hard on behalf of war widows and given support not only to the older widows but to the younger ones whose husbands served in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I always find it very humbling when I meet the widows of those who served in those conflicts. They take tremendous pride in what their husbands did, and we need to recognise that we should support them.
	The right hon. Gentleman's point about the older war widows was correct. I would not want to give the impression that the pension is the only support that this country gives to them. As a Government, we can rightly be proud of the changes that we have made for pensioners, which also affect many war widows. The minimum income guarantee, for example, has raised a lot of pensioners out of poverty, and I know that the winter fuel payment, which all pensioners receive, is very welcome. We need to look at the question of widows' pensions and war pensions in the round.
	The right hon. Gentleman has made some important points, but the aspects of retrospection and affordability make his proposals difficult to accept. Also, we should not raise people's hopes. I accept his point that the number of individuals involved is declining over the years, but we should not do any injustice to those who died before the changes were made. Any changes would involve an arbitrary date. I would not want this Government or any other to be prevented from introducing a change to pension entitlement by having to consider the cost of implementing the change retrospectively.